Fed 6 of 7?

[BGod]

Between his 2005 French Semifinal loss to Nadal to his 2007 French Finals loss Roger Federer won 6 of 7 Slams held.

Novak is currently on 3 of 4 and could equal it with another near miss at the Calendar Slam. Not talking about his chances at doing that (but if you must) however how revered should this OE streak be considered?

Borg for comparison even if we only count his participated Slams went 4 of 5 at best.

And of course Rod Laver who won the Calendar Slam in 69 did have a 5 in 6 streak after winning 68 Wimbledon (he lost in 5 sets to Dryscale at the 68 USO otherwise may have equaled Budge's 6 in a row).

 

[martinezownsclay]

I could honestly see it happening. I don't think Djokovic will ever do the Calendar Slam, since I am not sure if he will ever win the U.S Open again as that is the next generation best slam, and certainly not with the pressure of the Grand Slam.

However Australia, while it could get tougher now, with his record there he is still the favorite until he gets beaten there again atleast.

Roland Garros? It depends a lot on Nadal and to a degree Thiem and their recovery. If Nadal is really done, and Thiem does not get back to being a real contender again, there just isn't a lot of competition for him there. Zverev? Tsitsipas I guess? That is is about it. Most of the young to middle aged challengers don't excel on either clay or grass.

Wimbledon there is even less competition than RG. Like literally there is Denis S. and Berretini, and that is it. Zverev, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Thiem, and anyone else I can think of are garbage on grass.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Between his 2005 French Semifinal loss to Nadal to his 2007 French Finals loss Roger Federer won 6 of 7 Slams held.

Why not state the greater stat, which is Fed was undefeated in his first 7 slam finals, 7-0.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Why not state the greater stat, which is Fed was undefeated in his first 7 slam finals, 7-0.

Too bad he played Nadal in the RG semis rather than final in 2005, LOL!

 

[MichaelNadal]

Federer was that dude

 

[RaulRamirez]

Obviously, it's quite impressive. Achievement-wise, I don't think it's quite there with the NCYGS, let alone the true Grand Slam, though.

 

[Rosstour]

I made a thread sort of like this a while back. There was a really, really long period of time where Fed won 50%+ of total Slams held. His streak is much longer than Nadal's or Djok's.

 

[mike danny]

I made a thread sort of like this a while back. There was a really, really long period of time where Fed won 50%+ of total Slams held. His streak is much longer than Nadal's or Djok's.

Fed won 16 out of 27 slams from 2003 Wimb until 2010 AO.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Fed won 16 out of 27 slams from 2003 Wimb until 2010 AO.

That is wild - almost 2.5/year in roughly a 7-year stretch!

 

[Rosstour]

Fed won 16 out of 27 slams from 2003 Wimb until 2010 AO.

Yeah I think the streak that I identified was actually full seasons, just to make it harder on Fed. So I included the entire 2003 season and I think the whole 2010 season too? He still won 50%.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Why not state the greater stat, which is Fed was undefeated in his first 7 slam finals, 7-0.

His first 7 Major Finals were all on fast surfaces. (AO Rebound Ace, Wimb Grass, USO DecoTurf II)

His 8th Major FInal was at Roland Garros .... he lost that one.

So, a great stat for lovers of Fast court tennis. But not really that significant in the context of the overall sport of tennis which has Fast Grass and Slow Red Clay as its extremes.

 

[lucky13]

noles 4/4 is much more impressive!

 

[NAS]

Novak was 6 out of 8 one time and of course his Nole slam also.
I think Borg was also 6 out of 8 slam, he participated in

 

[King No1e]

I could honestly see it happening. I don't think Djokovic will ever do the Calendar Slam, since I am not sure if he will ever win the U.S Open again as that is the next generation best slam, and certainly not with the pressure of the Grand Slam.

However Australia, while it could get tougher now, with his record there he is still the favorite until he gets beaten there again atleast.

Roland Garros? It depends a lot on Nadal and to a degree Thiem and their recovery. If Nadal is really done, and Thiem does not get back to being a real contender again, there just isn't a lot of competition for him there. Zverev? Tsitsipas I guess? That is is about it. Most of the young to middle aged challengers don't excel on either clay or grass.

Wimbledon there is even less competition than RG. Like literally there is Denis S. and Berretini, and that is it. Zverev, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Thiem, and anyone else I can think of are garbage on grass.

Much more likely to win USO than RG IMO.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Much more likely to win USO than RG IMO.

Hard to say. Fact is there are many more strong hard court players than clay court players. Like way more. Keeping in mind we don't know right now if Nadal or Thiem are squat anymore, heading into next year.

 

[abmk]

His first 7 Major Finals were all on fast surfaces. (AO Rebound Ace, Wimb Grass, USO DecoTurf II)

His 8th Major FInal was at Roland Garros .... he lost that one.

So, a great stat for lovers of Fast court tennis. But not really that significant in the context of the overall sport of tennis which has Fast Grass and Slow Red Clay as its extremes.

rebound ace was a slow-medium HC, not fast (barring an exception like 2000)

 

[Karma Tennis]

rebound ace was a slow-medium HC, not fast (barring an exception like 2000)

This is what the ITF says about the speed of those particular surfaces and where in the ATP are located:

Category 1 - Slow
Category 2 - Medium-Slow
Category 3 - Medium
Category 4 - Medium-Fast
Category 5 - Fast

Gerflor Taraflex (Lyon, MS Paris): 5 - Fast
Greenset (AO) : 3 - Medium
Plexipave (Stockholm): 3 - Medium
RuKortHard (Zagreb): 5- Fast
Decoturf II (Indianapolis): 4 - Medium-Fast
Rebound Ace (Former AO): 4/5 - Medium-Fast / Fast
Premier Court: (Not listed)
Play Pave (Chennai): 3 - Medium
Plexicushion (Former AO): 3/4 - Medium / Medium-Fast
Decoturf (USO): 4 - Medium-Fast

Opinions might vary. I have played extensively on Rebound Ace, Cushioned Rebound Ace, Plexicushion and Plexipave. IME, Rebound Ace was noticeably faster than the others. I've never played on DecoTurf / DecoTurf II but imagine it is similar to RA. And the ITF Categories seem to confirm that.

 

[tsp_207]

I could honestly see it happening. I don't think Djokovic will ever do the Calendar Slam, since I am not sure if he will ever win the U.S Open again as that is the next generation best slam, and certainly not with the pressure of the Grand Slam.

However Australia, while it could get tougher now, with his record there he is still the favorite until he gets beaten there again atleast.

Roland Garros? It depends a lot on Nadal and to a degree Thiem and their recovery. If Nadal is really done, and Thiem does not get back to being a real contender again, there just isn't a lot of competition for him there. Zverev? Tsitsipas I guess? That is is about it. Most of the young to middle aged challengers don't excel on either clay or grass.

Wimbledon there is even less competition than RG. Like literally there is Denis S. and Berretini, and that is it. Zverev, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Thiem, and anyone else I can think of are garbage on grass.

Pretty sure Djokovic will win at least one more USO in his career. Remember that people were saying he would never win another RG and he should skip clay altogether. But yes, AO and WIM are still a lock for him based on current form. Let's see how 2022 goes.

 

[NAS]

This is what the ITF says about the speed of those particular surfaces and where in the ATP are located:

Category 1 - Slow
Category 2 - Medium-Slow
Category 3 - Medium
Category 4 - Medium-Fast
Category 5 - Fast

Gerflor Taraflex (Lyon, MS Paris): 5 - Fast
Greenset (AO) : 3 - Medium
Plexipave (Stockholm): 3 - Medium
RuKortHard (Zagreb): 5- Fast
Decoturf II (Indianapolis): 4 - Medium-Fast
Rebound Ace (Former AO): 4/5 - Medium-Fast / Fast
Premier Court: (Not listed)
Play Pave (Chennai): 3 - Medium
Plexicushion (Former AO): 3/4 - Medium / Medium-Fast
Decoturf (USO): 4 - Medium-Fast

Opinions might vary. I have played extensively on Rebound Ace, Cushioned Rebound Ace, Plexicushion and Plexipave. IME, Rebound Ace was noticeably faster than the others. I've never played on DecoTurf / DecoTurf II but imagine it is similar to RA. And the ITF Categories seem to confirm that.

Don't go by rating, apart from one odd year like 2000 RA used to play slow, even Hewitt was not pleased with surface and used to complain that it is worse than clay.
It took many years for Hewitt to make qf in AO than RG

 

[Karma Tennis]

Hewitt was not pleased with surface

Lleyton's issue was more about the consistency of the surface. The whole court related speed thing was a furphie. It was generally accepted the "slower" conditions were a function of a/ Environmental conditions (weather and humidity levels) and the tennis balls that were used.

Rebound Ace pioneer refutes Lleyton's claims

www.smh.com.au

Hewitt glad to see the back of Rebound Ace

Australian tennis star Lleyton Hewitt says the new Plexicushion hardcourts to be used at next month's Australian Open will help reduce wear and tear injuries for the players.

www.abc.net.au

Draper stokes Hewitt fire

Draper stokes Hewitt fire

www.foxsports.com.au

Anyway the ITF Ratings were accurate afaic. YMMV.

 

[ibbi]

Why not state the greater stat, which is Fed was undefeated in his first 7 slam finals, 7-0.

More impressive still is the finals winning streak, which I don't believe anyone has ever come close to. Open era or otherwise.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Pretty sure Djokovic will win at least one more USO in his career. Remember that people were saying he would never win another RG and he should skip clay altogether. But yes, AO and WIM are still a lock for him based on current form. Let's see how 2022 goes.

True, but I don't think he is winning the U.S Open next year, atleast no way he is winning it if he is going for the Grand Slam again somehow.

I guess my point is I see the U.S Open as his weakest slam from here. His dicey history there, particularly in finals. The Australian being his pet slam, even if it is on hard courts where he has by far the most competition. Clay there aren't a lot of competition IF Nadal and Thiem don't return to form. Grass there is even less competition. He is at the age he is weakened now, so it really depends on the others and where they are weak more than on him from here.

 

[WildRevolver]

Why not state the greater stat, which is Fed was undefeated in his first 7 slam finals, 7-0.

I guess I never realized that. He’s the GOAT. I’m secure enough with Rafa’s legacy to look back at what Fed accomplished and give him the edge over the other two. His peaks were higher, longer lasting, and the eye-test is indisputable.

 

[Karma Tennis]

He’s the GOAT. I’m secure enough with Rafa’s legacy to look back at what Fed accomplished and give him the edge over the other two.

Imho, any GOAT has to be the dominant player of their era. Pretty clear cut. Is Federer really the most dominant player of his era if he has an inferior H2H record against his two main opponents across the course of the entire careers? He also has a very poor record at Roland Garros.

ATG for sure. A GOAT?

 

[Spencer Gore]

That's the downfall of tennis in some ways. The truly great players are able to dominate the slightly less than great, so a single ATG in a field of non-ATGs (or young ATGs) can become a bloodbath.

When Federer was the only truly great player in the draw it was like taking candy from a baby, for him. When another great player matured, his win rate plummeted. When he had two great rivals, he started to have his candy snatched.

That's why any era with only one true great is never quite as enjoyable. Luckily, tennis has avoided that throughout most of its history. That 2003-07 period was a blip.

 

[Hitman]

Shows that without Nadal, Federer would have made a mockery of the sport, his dominance was absurd.

 

[abmk]

This is what the ITF says about the speed of those particular surfaces and where in the ATP are located:

Category 1 - Slow
Category 2 - Medium-Slow
Category 3 - Medium
Category 4 - Medium-Fast
Category 5 - Fast

Gerflor Taraflex (Lyon, MS Paris): 5 - Fast
Greenset (AO) : 3 - Medium
Plexipave (Stockholm): 3 - Medium
RuKortHard (Zagreb): 5- Fast
Decoturf II (Indianapolis): 4 - Medium-Fast
Rebound Ace (Former AO): 4/5 - Medium-Fast / Fast
Premier Court: (Not listed)
Play Pave (Chennai): 3 - Medium
Plexicushion (Former AO): 3/4 - Medium / Medium-Fast
Decoturf (USO): 4 - Medium-Fast

Opinions might vary. I have played extensively on Rebound Ace, Cushioned Rebound Ace, Plexicushion and Plexipave. IME, Rebound Ace was noticeably faster than the others. I've never played on DecoTurf / DecoTurf II but imagine it is similar to RA. And the ITF Categories seem to confirm that.

there's no way on earth Rebound Ace at AO was faster than Deco II at USO.
Rebound ace was medium at best.

its not just the category of surface. there are multiple factors like sanding for example.

We've seen plexi be both clearly slower (11-12) and faster (17-18, 21) compared to rebound ace.

 

[mike danny]

Imho, any GOAT has to be the dominant player of their era. Pretty clear cut. Is Federer really the most dominant player of his era if he has an inferior H2H record against his two main opponents across the course of the entire careers? He also has a very poor record at Roland Garros.

ATG for sure. A GOAT?

All 3 of them are GOATS really.

His 2 main opponents are a generation younger than he is. Not much you can do about that.

 

[WildRevolver]

Shows that without Nadal, Federer would have made a mockery of the sport, his dominance was absurd.

True heavyweight champ.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

amazing. Goat stuff.

 

[Karma Tennis]

His 2 main opponents are a generation younger than he is. Not much you can do about that.

True heavyweight champ.

Federer won his first Major in 2003 at Wimbledon. He did not win a Roland Garros Title until 2009 - and that was playing Soderling. So it took Federer SIX YEARS to win a Roland Garros Title after winning his first Major. Frankly, if Federer was that dominant early in his career, you would think he would have won at least one RG Title much sooner than he did.

He is probably a GRASS GOAT ... along with Laver, Borg, Sampras and Djokovic. But that's about it.

(I can accept that many of you are probably Americans who favour the value of HC Tennis over the value of Red Clay Tennis. And that's fine!)

 

[mike danny]

Federer won his first Major in 2003 at Wimbledon. He did not win a Roland Garros Title until 2009 - and that was playing Soderling. So it took Federer SIX YEARS to win a Roland Garros Title after winning his first Major. Frankly, if Federer was that dominant early in his career, you would think he would have won at least one RG Title much sooner than he did.

He is probably a GRASS GOAT ... along with Laver, Borg, Sampras and Djokovic. But that's about it.

(I can accept that many of you are probably Americans who favour the value of HC Tennis over the value of Red Clay Tennis. And that's fine!)

Djokovic also won his first RG title extremely late.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Djokovic also won his first RG title extremely late.

True. But he has two of them till now. And perhaps will get one or two more before he is done.

Djokovic had to contend with peak Nadal from his get-go. Federer didn't.

And Djokovic has defeated Nadal twice at RG. IIRC Federer has never defeated Nadal at RG.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Where the heck did you get a picture of the Roger Federer cloning facility? It is supposed to be huge secret.

 

[SonnyT]

That is wild - almost 2.5/year in roughly a 7-year stretch!

In the 00's, he only had to beat Phillipoussis, Roddick and the likes for slam titles. In the 10's, he had to beat Djokovic and Nadal.

The differences were obvious.

 

[ForehandRF]

In the 00's, he only had to beat Phillipoussis, Roddick and the likes for slam titles. In the 10's, he had to beat Djokovic and Nadal.

The differences were obvious.

He beat Mark only one time in a slam final so can you stop with this detractor logic ? You are becoming increasingly repetitive and fanatic and it's not like Djokovic pays you to do it lol

 

[SonnyT]

He beat Mark only one time in a slam final so can you stop with this detractor logic ? You are becoming increasingly repetitive and fanatic and it's not like Djokovic pays you to do it lol

But they were all weaklings, like Philippousis. So I'm correct!

Federer failed again, and again, when he had to face real champions at Slam finals.

 

[NAS]

But they were all weaklings, like Philippousis. So I'm correct!

Federer failed again, and again, when he had to face real champions at Slam finals.

Scud was not weak, he is the best slamless player in last 30 years alongside Nalbandian and Zverev.
Even Sampras was awe of him.
He never took tennis seriously and alongside injury his career was derailed

 

[ForehandRF]

But they were all weaklings, like Philippousis. So I'm correct!

Federer failed again, and again, when he had to face real champions at Slam finals.

Federer set the bar in 2004-2007 and Nadal had to dig deep in order to have success outside Roland Garros, then Djokovic had to dig even deeper.Without Federer, Nadal and Djokovic wouldn't be the same players we know, so instead of trashing Federer's competition, you better learn how tennis works.Federer himself had to improve big time in order to have success against his peers because they dominated him early on, they weren't weak by any means.

 

[ForehandRF]

Scud was not weak, he is the best slamless player in last 30 years alongside Nalbandian and Zverev.
Even Sampras was awe of him.
He never took tennis seriously and alongside injury his career was derailed

It has always been easy for detractors just to look at the name of the opponent and not at the level of the winner

 

[RaulRamirez]

In the 00's, he only had to beat Phillipoussis, Roddick and the likes for slam titles. In the 10's, he had to beat Djokovic and Nadal.

The differences were obvious.

I don't concur. You can't simply write off that level of domination. I'm not a fan of "weak era" talking points aimed at anyone.

 

[goldengate14]

Why not state the greater stat, which is Fed was undefeated in his first 7 slam finals, 7-0.

That is astonishing. Did not know that. Thank you for posting

 

[AntonZweck]

Fed won 16 out of 27 slams from 2003 Wimb until 2010 AO.

Impressive!

 

[Karma Tennis]

That is astonishing. Did not know that. Thank you for posting

Did not win a Roland Garros Title in those first seven Finals.

Impressive!

Only won a single Roland Garros Title between 2003 and 2010. And did not face Nadal to win that RG Title. And has not won another RG Title.

Won 4 Major Titles from 2010 AO till end of 2021 when his two main rivals have dominated him.

It is easy to pick certain parts of any player's career to make them look better than they are.

Comparisons are relatively pointless until the player's career is completed. None of the Big 3 is "Done" yet.

 

[abmk]

In the 00's, he only had to beat Phillipoussis, Roddick and the likes for slam titles. In the 10's, he had to beat Djokovic and Nadal.

The differences were obvious.

Djokovic only beat Berretini and Anderson for his slam titles. In 07-10, when he had to face off vs Federer/Nadal, he won one slam total.

 

[AntonZweck]

Did not win a Roland Garros Title in those first seven Finals.

Only won a single Roland Garros Title between 2003 and 2010. And did not face Nadal to win that RG Title. And has not won another RG Title.

Won 4 Major Titles from 2010 AO till end of 2021 when his two main rivals have dominated him.

It is easy to pick certain parts of any player's career to make them look better than they are.

Comparisons are relatively pointless until the player's career is completed. None of the Big 3 is "Done" yet.

Impressive if you ask Pete Sampras.